NRO contribution to the WCIT Public Consultation ­­P rocess

[John Curran <jcurran@xxx>]

On behalf of the 5 Regional Internet Registries (AFRINIC, APNIC, ARIN, 
LACNIC, and 
RIPE NCC), please find the attached submission to the WCIT Public 
Consultation ­­Process

Sincerely,
/John

John Curran
Chair, Number Resource Organization (NRO)

=== Plain text format

3 November 2012

 
International Telecommunication Union
Place des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 20
Switzerland


Re: NRO contribution to the WCIT Public Consultation ­­Process

The Number Resource Organization (the NRO, comprising the five Regional 
Internet Registries) appreciates the opportunity to contribute some views in 
preparation for the World Conference on International Telecommunications 
(WCIT) that will discuss the long-established International Telecommunication 
Regulations (ITRs). 

The ITRs were originally intended to guide the provision of international 
switched telephone services and, within its scope and strength, have promoted 
the growth of international connectivity. We support the continuance of the 
ITRs as they were intended. 

The NRO has followed with interest, the discussions about proposed changes to 
ITRs. Under the current ITU procedures, our organizations do not have full 
access to the discussions nor a formal say in the negotiations. However, as 
we have been acquainted with some of the proposals to revise the existing 
ITRs, we note that if some of these are accepted into the regulations, they 
may adversely affect how telecommunications networks are managed and how they 
may develop into the future. These are important matters affecting the public 
interest, for which participation of relevant stakeholders could be sought in 
the decision-making process.

We have noted proposals to include new provisions into the ITRs as means to 
address some concerns by ITU Member States in the fields of: a) 
interconnection costs; b) security; c) spam; and, d) issues relating to 
Internet resources.

While we share many of the concerns expressed by the ITU Member States, we do 
not believe that new provisions in the ITRs can effectively help to solve 
these matters, and instead, may carry unintended consequences. The ITRs will 
remain unchanged for many years after WCIT, while most of the issues of 
concern will change as technologies will evolve.

Our concerns can be summarised more particularly, as follows:

a)        Proposals to include in the ITRs provisions to change 
interconnection models could impose undue limitations to service providers. 
The expansion of the Internet could not have occurred if not through peering 
agreements and the establishment of Internet exchange points (IXPs). These 
agreements are voluntary, sometimes with no written contracts, and frequently 
involve no financial transactions. Introducing an intergovernmental, 
treaty-based, global regulatory scheme to codify or lock-in particular 
business models may hinder instead of encourage innovation and further growth 
in international connectivity.

b)        There are proposals from a number of ITU Member States to amend the 
ITRs to include references to security, touching the realms of content, 
national defence, and cybercrime. In the quest to guarantee more secure 
networks, cooperation with different stakeholders is essential. The 
application of legal or policy principles related with security into the ITRs 
may impose obligations to ITU Member States that limit, instead of foster, 
this needed collaboration.  c)       With regard to the inclusion of spam in 
the provisions of the ITRs, we note that spam is complex issue of network 
usage or content for which no simple solution exists. Our concern is that the 
suggested ITR provisions are likely to have little effect and will certainly 
become quickly out-dated as technology evolves.

d)        Proposed revisions to the ITRs involving aspects of naming, 
numbering, and addressing, are prone to have unintended consequences if 
accepted by ITU members. It appears these provisions transcend the realm of 
switched telephony for which the ITRs were formulated and may negatively 
impact existing Internet operations and management. Resource management for 
Internet naming, numbering, and addressing have well-established, 
multistakeholder governance structures and policy development processes. Some 
proposals could have unintended consequences and impact these successful 
structures, or even create obligations for ITU Member States to outlaw 
firewalls, filters and proxies, which are common practice in the Internet 
today.[1]

We commend the ITU Council for creating a space such as this one for 
participation in the WCIT process. We do hope that ITU Member States find 
value in collaborating with other stakeholders who may be affected by the 
outcomes of WCIT. Shared expertise and exchange of information are important 
in order to find viable solutions, to avoid unintended consequences, and for 
the protection of the public interest. We do share a strong commitment to the 
growth of international connectivity and we trust for an inclusive 
environment where we can work together to achieve these goals.


[1] More of this subject is explained in the article: “Number misuse, 
telecommunications regulations, and WCIT”.  Available here: 
http://www.apnic.net/number-misuse-gih